Viewing page 45 of 86

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

During the negotiations, the insurance company stated that under no circumstances would it pay the full amount of the consignment price, in view of the fact that the artist's actual loss consisted of the net amount she would have received upon a sale of the paintings. The insurance company never wavered from this position, and for this reason insisted upon my signing Exhibit "C". 

Finally, as irrefutable and conclusive evidence of the fact that the plaintiff is only entitled to the net figure which she fixed for each painting which totalled $4,796.67, I respectfully refer this Court to Exhibit "D" annexed hereto, consisting of two pages. This exhibit was prepared by the plaintiff on March 15th, 1948, after the fire in question. In the last paragraph on page 2, the plaintiff stated that the above figures represented the valuation of the paintings and included the one-third commission which the gallery was to receive upon the sale of the paintings. Thus, if the plaintiff was to receive only two-thirds of the sales price when the paintings were to be sold, how can the plaintiff now advance the argument that she is entitled to the entire sum. 

The fact that the insurance company did pay the defendant its commissions is of no concern to the plaintiff. Her interest in the paintings totalled $4,796.67, and this amount was tendered to the plaintiff on June 8th, 1948. Plaintiff refused to accept this sum and demanded the commissions which the defendant had received from the insurance company. In view of practically half of a century of my firm's relationship with Lloyds, that insurance company was willing to recompense the defendant for its loss of commissions -- although, as pointed out above, the insurance company paid such commissions without prejudice to any future claim. It was the defendant who asserted the plaintiff's claim against the insurance company. If the 

-3-